Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Aug 26.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Med Child Neurol. 2021 Apr 6;63(7):771–784. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14855

Table 5:

Assessing the risk of bias in each review using the AMSTAR-2 criteria

AMSTAR-2 criteria Hadders-Algra et al.18 Morgan et al.16 Morgan et al.17
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria include the components of PICO? + + +
2. Did the review contain an explicit statement that the methods were decided before the review, justifying any significant deviations? +/− +/− +/−
3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? +
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? +/− +/− +/−
5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? + + +
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? + + +
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and reasons why they were excluded? + +
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? + + +
9a. Did the review authors use an adequate technique to assess the risk of bias in individual studies included in the review (RCTs)? + +
9b. Did the review authors use an adequate technique to assess the risk of bias in individual studies included in the review (NRSI)? NA NA
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
11a. If a meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results (RCTs)? NA + NA
11b. If a meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results (NRSI)? NA NA NA
12. If a meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies included on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? NA + NA
13. Did the review authors account for risk of bias in individual studies when discussing/interpreting the results of the review? + + +
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? + + +
15. If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? NA + NA
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? + + +

PICO, participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes; RCT, randomized controlled trial; NRSI, non-randomized studies of interventions; NA, not applicable.